A Novel Idea from Vermont (C&P)
Here's something a buddy sent me that I thought might bring a smile to some faces here. Yeah, it's from Oct 2009 but it's a novel idea.
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=1820
COB
___________________________________
Register non-gun owners
Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont 's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.
Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.
Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only
affirming the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear mandate to do so. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals!
Vermont 's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms," shall be required to "pay such equivalent." Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."
Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says
Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state. It's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.
This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has
resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation!!!
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the
system, but too early to shoot the bums."
This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way.
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=1820
COB
___________________________________
Register non-gun owners
Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont 's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.
Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.
Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only
affirming the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear mandate to do so. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals!
Vermont 's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms," shall be required to "pay such equivalent." Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."
Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says
Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state. It's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.
This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has
resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation!!!
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the
system, but too early to shoot the bums."
This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way.
0
-
COB,
IMO, this attempt at legislation is no different than legislation that serves to restrict, regulate or prohibit the RTKBA.
Both are unconstitutional.0 -
While I usually like the idea of "stunts" to help call attention to the need for gun rights, I fear this particular "stunt" will achieve no good and only muddy the waters in regards to making actual progress. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
COB,
IMO, this attempt at legislation is no different than legislation that serves to restrict, regulate or prohibit the RTKBA.
Both are unconstitutional.
WS - while I must agree with you that this "mimics" in reverse that same legislation we abhor here on GB, I must still admit, it's a funny idea. I can picture the anti-gun nuts going apoplectic at the prospect that THEY have to give up something.
You know, it's not all that different from when the judge told my ex-wife SHE had to pay me. She almost choked on it.
COB0 -
This is a excellent opportunity. While Gov looks for revenue in all the wrong places her is a Constitutional area for participation in low cost law enforcement like Switzerland. Plus a way to pay down big gov expensiveness. 0 -
Put a smile on my face. I believe it was Jefferson who said it's every mans right and DUTY to be armed. If you put a little spin on it one could bring up the idea that it was not the criminal at fault but place blame on the victim for not being able to protect him/her self. It's happened before and I could site a court case or two. 0 -
quote:steveaustin Posted - 04/11/2010 : 01:57:57 AM
Put a smile on my face. I believe it was Jefferson who said it's every mans right and DUTY to be armed. If you put a little spin on it one could bring up the idea that it was not the criminal at fault but place blame on the victim for not being able to protect him/her self. It's happened before and I could site a court case or two.
I believe not enough people take this DUTY seriously.
Steve, if you can make time please do post a couple of these cases. I appreciate your on running thread, and would enjoy these also.0 -
I'm in limbo with a new job (building custom one off motorcycles) but I will see what I can come up with the time that I have. Thanks for your appreciation.
steve
Buffalobo, I found a few interesting cases but not the one I am looking for. I'll ask around in other circles but I will post a self defense link where the plantiff is a burgler who was shot in another mans home and is/was sueing for damages. Messed up legal system.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711925/posts
This is another good one. It is a pay for site for research and my subscription is expired
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-23227104.html
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2538221
Disturbing to say the least. Don't have time to follow up on outcomes but maybe you would like to carry the mantle on this one.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
COB,
IMO, this attempt at legislation is no different than legislation that serves to restrict, regulate or prohibit the RTKBA.
Both are unconstitutional.
I agree. Though I love the novelty of it, a persons rights in my mind only go so far as not to infringe on someone elses rights. For example, I feel I have the right to own a gun. When I chose to use said gun in a crime against someone else(violating their rights) I lose my rights. Similarly, if someone chooses not to own a gun, their rights are fine as long as it does not infringe upon my rights of owning one. We each should be able to choose our own path. And not gripe about the other path so long as it does not infringe upon our own rights. A line drawn in the sand so to speak. IMO this is fundamental in the Constitution.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
8 comments